Of course Dave Hill is correct when he asserts that the elephant in the room affecting human destiny is over-population (Chronicle; July 3).
This, of course, is only the symptom, not the disease.
We are, as a species, massively overdrawn on our account with the bank of Mother Earth, and we all know what happens to those with big overdrafts who don't stop spending.
It's pointless admonishing the Third World for their high birth rates and then trying to foist our wasteful-growth-mantra economic system on them as the solution.
We have to bite the bullet because we are the ones who throw away a third of our food and create mountains of trash in order to sustain consumerism and greed driven economic growth.
L E FITTON, Whanganui
Nature of man
Russ Hay, in a recent letter, gave a dictionary definition of "soul" as "the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being often regarded as immortal".
I do not know to which dictionary Russ refers but, while it may be a term whose meaning is depicted above, I suggest a biblical definition needs to be ascertained if he is to understand the nature of man.
Words often change their meaning and often the original meaning may not be found.
The word "soul" appeared in the King James (Authorised Version) published in the 17th century. It was the unhappy rendering of the Hebrew word "nephesh" by the word "soul" that opened the door to Greek beliefs. Modern translations read that a living being, or person, was created.
It is from the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, that we can discover the nature of man. Nowhere in the Old Testament do we read of the immortality of a soul, or of a person being incorruptible after death.
We read in Genesis (2:7) that man is an animated being consisting of flesh into which breath has been infused. It is inconceivable that breath should exist independently outside the body.
To the most primitive observation the breath was, and is, the most important manifestation of life and the absence of breath in a person was a factor in determining death.
JOHN STEPHENSON, BD, Whanganui
Me and I and Kieran Read
Kieran Read's toothpaste commercial on TV shows very bad English from the All Blacks captain.
"Me and my family" - you mean "My family and I". Get it right.
GARY STEWART, Foxton Beach
Rubbish collection not core
V W Balance (Letters; July 16) makes some good points but is wrong on two counts.
He says: "Rubbish collection is an essential council core activity; a recycling collection is not."
Rubbish collection here is de facto not a council activity; it is a private enterprise activity.
There is a good case for saying council should control the whole waste stream - rubbish and recycling - but that's unlikely to happen given the two multinational waste companies doing collections here also jointly own the landfill. They have no interest in waste minimisation since it cuts into their bottom line.
Recycling collection is a council activity in as much as the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 puts responsibility on territorial authorities to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation.
V.W. also states: "Any new activity undertaken by the council must be at the lowest possible cost."
We need to be aware that the problem with China no longer taking our recycled plastics is largely due to contaminated product from poor collection techniques.
Good practice involves kerbside sorting and separate glass collection.
These measures greatly reduce contamination but at a cost - cheapest is not best. If we want to promote recycling industries in NZ then a clean product is essential.
H GURTON, Whanganui
